Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44

Thread: So boosters names will remain redacted?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Dawgology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    6,270
    vCash
    52525

    So boosters names will remain redacted?

    It was my understanding that the State Ethics Commission released an opinion that the boosters names should not be redacted about the time that Ole Miss released a statement saying that the NOA would be released with the names unredacted. The Ethics Commission conveniently accepted that and didn't make an actual ruling.

    This unredacted release didn't happen. In fact, the complete opposite happened.

    So...State Ethics Commission is like "cool, bro...laterz!"

    WTAF? Is there a way to get an outside organization to come in and start a corruption investigation? This goes waaaaaaaaaaay beyond college football.

  2. #2
    Senior Member msstate7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    72,073
    vCash
    10439
    Good. I love the fact the NCAA will look at this as OM wants to protect the ones that caused all this trouble (rich white dudes) and put a student athlete (young, black man) on blast as the real problem.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,150
    vCash
    3197
    One thing you can always count on: ole miss will never do the "right thing" when there is another choice. Even if that choice is to just ignore state law or direction from an ethics committee.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Tbonewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,648
    vCash
    3500
    So can Steve file yet another complaint? Probably what they were looking for to drag this out another few months.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Dawgology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    6,270
    vCash
    52525
    Quote Originally Posted by MadDawg View Post
    One thing you can always count on: ole miss will never do the "right thing" when there is another choice. Even if that choice is to just ignore state law or direction from an ethics committee.
    It's not so much that they are ignoring the State Ethics Commission as much as it is that it comes across as all pre-scripted with the State Ethics Commission being somewhat complicit. At least, that is what it looks like from the outside. The Commission can avoid making a ruling (which they would have HAD to rule against Ole Miss on this issue as it is a clear violation) but still put out an "opinion" which isn't legally binding nor does it carry much/any weight. Yet they still look like they did something while not really doing it. Meanwhile, Ole Miss can say "well we were GOING to buuuuuutttt...there was that TOTALLY unexpected motion filed by one booster that just kept us from doing anything....".

    Funny how that just all worked out....

    I'm NOT saying that is how it went down but it does look suspect.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Interpolation_Dawg_EX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,378
    vCash
    62623
    Anyone have contact info for the state ethics commission?

  7. #7
    Senior Member msstate7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    72,073
    vCash
    10439
    Quote Originally Posted by Interpolation_Dawg_EX View Post
    Anyone have contact info for the state ethics commission?
    Www.olemiss.edu

  8. #8
    Senior Member Reason2succeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,066
    vCash
    2610
    Quote Originally Posted by msstate7 View Post
    Good. I love the fact the NCAA will look at this as OM wants to protect the ones that caused all this trouble (rich white dudes) and put a student athlete (young, black man) on blast as the real problem.
    I told you guys once before to call MSNBC. There would be nothing juicy for Rachel Maddow as a reprieve from her Trump scandal coverage than to talk about OM, the bastion of southern "heritage" allowing a booster to sue a SA at their rival. Add in the state ethics commission not releasing the names of boosters and yes Dawgology this goes WAY beyond CFB. This is borderline criminal.
    Death penalty or bust!!!***

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,150
    vCash
    3197
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgology View Post
    It's not so much that they are ignoring the State Ethics Commission as much as it is that it comes across as all pre-scripted with the State Ethics Commission being somewhat complicit. At least, that is what it looks like from the outside. The Commission can avoid making a ruling (which they would have HAD to rule against Ole Miss on this issue as it is a clear violation) but still put out an "opinion" which isn't legally binding nor does it carry much/any weight. Yet they still look like they did something while not really doing it. Meanwhile, Ole Miss can say "well we were GOING to buuuuuutttt...there was that TOTALLY unexpected motion filed by one booster that just kept us from doing anything....".

    Funny how that just all worked out....

    I'm NOT saying that is how it went down but it does look suspect.
    I would not doubt this in the least. Nothing they do isn't a well orchestrated plan put into action. I laugh when I hear someone like Dick Cross say they wonder what ole miss thinks of the RR lawsuit. It's hilarious for anyone to try and act like ole miss wasn't a steering and driving force for that lawsuit. Hell their response to the NOA was written with that lawsuit in mind.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,150
    vCash
    3197
    Quote Originally Posted by msstate7 View Post
    I laughed

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,465
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by Reason2succeed View Post
    I told you guys once before to call MSNBC. There would be nothing juicy for Rachel Maddow as a reprieve from her Trump scandal coverage than to talk about OM, the bastion of southern "heritage" allowing a booster to sue a SA at their rival. Add in the state ethics commission not releasing the names of boosters and yes Dawgology this goes WAY beyond CFB. This is borderline criminal.
    You are probably right. As bad as I hate them, there is probably a member of the liberal media that would love to jump on something like this, especially something that could be presented with a racial slant.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Lord McBuckethead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    12,980
    vCash
    3086
    Quote Originally Posted by msstate7 View Post
    Good. I love the fact the NCAA will look at this as OM wants to protect the ones that caused all this trouble (rich white dudes) and put a student athlete (young, black man) on blast as the real problem.
    How about this one, now the only person that released the names publicly are the people that are suing for slander. Which those statements were still private and not public, until the suit was filed. I can smell a countersuit brewing.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Really Clark?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    12,666
    vCash
    3100
    The Motion to Intervene arguments from the booster were not to be heard until 6/27 at the Ethics Commission. If that has not been cancelled or dismissed, why would anyone expect the names to be released before that meeting?

  14. #14
    Senior Member Tbonewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,648
    vCash
    3500
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead View Post
    How about this one, now the only person that released the names publicly are the people that are suing for slander. Which those statements were still private and not public, until the suit was filed. I can smell a countersuit brewing.
    So could Leo sue all the boosters in the NOA by name to prevent his name being leaked to the media? Would he have gotten a copy with the names?

  15. #15
    General Public Political Hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    General Public
    Posts
    17,284
    vCash
    7178
    $100 that OleMiss will use the lawsuit to intercede in the COI hearing. They'll find a way to try to stop the hearing from occurring, legally. If the NCAA has any cohones, they'll just waive the hearing and issue an immediate death penalty. That's the only thing that's going to stop them imo and I think they've proven that to everyone by now.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Lumpy Chucklelips's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,281
    vCash
    3700
    The Ethics Committee meets again on July 14. Supposedly will have a final ruling whether to intervene or not at that time. If they don't intervene, then you have your answer whether or not they are complicit with OM's actions.

    I believe at some time in July the NCAA will have their response to OM's response to the noa. At that time the date for the meeting with the COI will be set. The ncaa's response will be interesting to say the least. It will either be no dice, we don't buy what you're selling, or ok, we'll drop the allegation of getting free merchandise down to a level III. Now go see the COI on such and such date.

    I'm predicting they say no dice. Remember, the NCAA has said they no longer hand out an allegation they don't have the evidence to back it up. After the Miami fiasco, they are dotting their i's and crossing their t's on this one. With the magnitude of this case, they aren't leaving anything to be scrutinized.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Dawgology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    6,270
    vCash
    52525
    Quote Originally Posted by Really Clark? View Post
    The Motion to Intervene arguments from the booster were not to be heard until 6/27 at the Ethics Commission. If that has not been cancelled or dismissed, why would anyone expect the names to be released before that meeting?
    A) Ole Miss said they would
    B) MS Ethics Commission said they should

    But in reality, shortly after the Ethics commission tabled everything once Ole Miss said they would release the unredacted copy I said this was a stall tactic and that they would lean on something that came up to not release the names. You could see it coming from a mile away. I actually stated it on this message board so you could probably go find it.

    I started this topic because I think it is important for college athletics and our state in general to shed a light on this as much as possible. The fact that this hasn't been covered by ANY media is disheartening.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Tbonewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,648
    vCash
    3500
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpy Chucklelips View Post
    The Ethics Committee meets again on July 14. Supposedly will have a final ruling whether to intervene or not at that time. If they don't intervene, then you have your answer whether or not they are complicit with OM's actions.

    I believe at some time in July the NCAA will have their response to OM's response to the noa. At that time the date for the meeting with the COI will be set. The ncaa's response will be interesting to say the least. It will either be no dice, we don't buy what you're selling, or ok, we'll drop the allegation of getting free merchandise down to a level III. Now go see the COI on such and such date.

    I'm predicting they say no dice. Remember, the NCAA has said they no longer hand out an allegation they don't have the evidence to back it up. After the Miami fiasco, they are dotting their i's and crossing their t's on this one. With the magnitude of this case, they aren't leaving anything to be scrutinized.
    This is pretty much the case that will define how recruiting will be handled in the future. I don't think all those big time programs will like it if UM is allowed to buy players out from under them and get away scott free. UM screwed up when they started Flipmas with commits from other schools, not just MSU. They got greedy and now we will see what the cost really is. Do you pay $100 for speeding but $125 for speeding driving down the wrong way street loaded on purple drank hitting pedestrians? Or do you go to prison for 10 years with millions in fines. Everyone speeds and occasionally you get caught then you pay your fine and go about your business. Not everyone does what UM does.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Dawgology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    6,270
    vCash
    52525
    Quote Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe View Post
    This is pretty much the case that will define how recruiting will be handled in the future. I don't think all those big time programs will like it if UM is allowed to buy players out from under them and get away scott free. UM screwed up when they started Flipmas with commits from other schools, not just MSU. They got greedy and now we will see what the cost really is. Do you pay $100 for speeding but $125 for speeding driving down the wrong way street loaded on purple drank hitting pedestrians? Or do you go to prison for 10 years with millions in fines. Everyone speeds and occasionally you get caught then you pay your fine and go about your business. Not everyone does what UM does.
    Yep. UM isn't making it out of this unscathed but if the damage is bearable then NCAA football will become the Wild West. At that point you may as well make it a minor league, give school salary caps, and move on.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Really Clark?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    12,666
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgology View Post
    A) Ole Miss said they would
    B) MS Ethics Commission said they should

    But in reality, shortly after the Ethics commission tabled everything once Ole Miss said they would release the unredacted copy I said this was a stall tactic and that they would lean on something that came up to not release the names. You could see it coming from a mile away. I actually stated it on this message board so you could probably go find it.

    I started this topic because I think it is important for college athletics and our state in general to shed a light on this as much as possible. The fact that this hasn't been covered by ANY media is disheartening.
    Points A and B was made prior to the Motion to Intervene though. The booster removed the case (some say the judge was going to dismiss anyway) from Circuit Court so they could file with the Ethics Commission. This was done after they had ruled and UNM stated they would comply with the Ethics Commission. By procedure, I think the Ethics Commission was correct in the handling of this so far. They even chastised UNM for not complying originally and having this case brought to them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.